John Nginyi Muchiri v Saul Korir Kiptalam & 6 Others [2007] KECA 3 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to strike out a notice of appeal because delays in preparing court proceedings don't count against the appellant.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondents failed to take essential steps to institute their appeal from the High Court judgment
- 2.Whether the time for instituting the appeal had expired such that the notice of appeal should be struck out
- 3.Whether the notice of appeal filed by the 4th and 7th respondents was incurably defective
Key legal issues
#Whether a notice of appeal should be struck out where the appellant has not lodged the record of appeal within the prescribed time
The application failed because the respondents had applied for certified copies of the proceedings and judgment within thirty days of the decision, engaging the proviso to rule 81(1) which excludes from the computation of time the period required by the registrar to prepare and deliver the copies. Since no letter from the Deputy Registrar showing the copies were ready was produced, the respondents could not be said to have gone to sleep or failed to take essential steps.
The court noted that the advocates for the 2nd and 5th respondents wrote to the Deputy Registrar on 29th April, 2005, the day after judgment, requesting certified copies of the proceedings and judgment to prepare the record of appeal, and copied the letter to the applicant's advocates. A similar letter was written on 31st January, 2007. There was no letter from the Deputy Registrar stating the certified copies were ready for collection. The proviso to rule 81(1) therefore protected the respondents' position, and the delay was attributable to the registry, whose file 'kept on moving from one office to another', not to the appellants.
Legal principles established
#- Where an appellant applies for a copy of the superior court proceedings in accordance with sub-rule (2) of rule 81 within thirty days of the decision appealed against, the time certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of the copy is excluded in computing the time within which the appeal must be instituted; failure by the court registry to ready the proceedings is not a failure by the appellant to take essential steps.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 29th June, 2006 be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- H.C.C.C. No. 583 of 1996
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 42, 43, 74, 80 and 81 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to strike out a Notice of Appeal)
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Notices of Appeal filed on 28th April, 2005 and 12th May, 2005 by the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 7th respondents
The application lacked merit because the proviso to rule 81(1) excludes the time certified as required for preparation of proceedings where an application for copies was made within thirty days of the decision
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied that this application to strike out the notice of appeal is filed without any merit. We accordingly order that the notice of motion dated 29th June, 2006 be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Provided that where an application for a copy of the proceedings in the superior court has been made in accordance with sub-rule (2) within thirty days of the date of the decision against which it is desired to appeal, there shall, in computing the time within which the appeal is to be instituted, be excluded such time as may be certified by the registrar of the superior court as having been required for the preparation and delivery to the appellant of such copy.
It was Mr. Ikua's contention that the purpose of filing the notice of appeal was merely to allow the respondents remain on the suit land and keep the applicant away from the fruits of his judgment in the superior court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the notice of appeal was dated 12th May, 2005 while the motion seeks to strike out notices of appeal filed on 28th April, 2005 and 12th May, 2005, and the court itself observes that the filing date is unclear from the rubber stamp on the file.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Nginyi Muchiri v Saul Korir Kiptalam & 6 Others [2007] KECA 3 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2007). Civil Appli. Nai 202 of 2006. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/3/eng@2007-03-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.